# Group Review Queue Items
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/group-review-queue-items/400783
**Category:** UX
**Tags:** review-queue
**Created:** [April 16, 2026, 10:43am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/group-review-queue-items/400783 "2026-04-16T10:43:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@noahl](https://meta.discourse.org/u/noahl)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2026, 10:43am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/group-review-queue-items/400783/1 "2026-04-16T10:43:12Z")
Hey! Let me tell a story _(that happened about 5 mins ago š
)_ - which better UX within the review queue would likely have helped avoid.
We had 12 items in the queue, and as usual I work through them in the order they are shown to me.
First in the list is a new user account that was flagged as a likely spam account - I checked their description and other details, and it felt āspammyā, so I deleted the profile.
5-6 items later, I find a first topic from this user š - and theyāre a legit user, with a very real question š«
I canāt help but think that had the review queue grouped these items together, I would have made a very different decision about their profile.
Is it possible to add some indication in the queue for cases like this? Or a confirmation dialogue for the more āaggressiveā actions. Itās not the first time Iāve accidentally deleted a user, or deleted and blocked them unintentionally.
Something like:
> This user has created X topics, Y posts, and engaged with Z conversations in the last ABC days.
>
> Continue to delete?
---
### Author:  [@NateDhaliwal](https://meta.discourse.org/u/NateDhaliwal)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2026, 11:00am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/group-review-queue-items/400783/2 "2026-04-16T11:00:30Z")
Hmmā¦ this is quite interesting. I wonder, what about something like āThis user has other items in the queue. Would you like to review that first?ā? Though it might seem as a form of encouragement to delete the user if they have more flagged items.
---
### Author:  [@chapoi](https://meta.discourse.org/u/chapoi)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2026, 11:01am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/group-review-queue-items/400783/3 "2026-04-16T11:01:32Z")
The insights tab shows how many post the user has made:
Maybe we can extend that area a bit.
---
### Author:  [@Lilly](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Lilly)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2026, 11:10am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/group-review-queue-items/400783/4 "2026-04-16T11:10:59Z")
insights are great yes, but having a moderation guide topic that is more up to date would certainly help with understanding the review queue better.
> [@Discourse Moderation Guide - Part 1: Getting Started](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-moderation-guide/63116/100):
>
> the flagging section is way out of date to the point of getting unhelpful. which is unfortunate because by default the review queue includes a direct link the this guide (i know it can be changed [no it canāt be changed](https://meta.discourse.org/t/custom-review-queue-help-links/400700)) . i count 2 dropdown options (Yes or No) with multiple each, that may depend on the type of flag.
---
### Author:  [@noahl](https://meta.discourse.org/u/noahl)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2026, 11:45am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/group-review-queue-items/400783/5 "2026-04-16T11:45:53Z")
> [@NateDhaliwal](#):
>
> Though it might seem as a form of encouragement to delete the user if they have more flagged items
Agreed - Iām not sure what the exact UX should be here - but somethingās missing in the current experience.
I imagine some sort of āgrouping by userā that is more than just listing each item in order would help here.
> [@chapoi](#):
>
> The insights tab shows how many post the user has made:
If Iām honest, I tend not to use the insights š
The problem in this case is the fact the items were split within the queue - Iād expect multiple items in the queue related to the same user to be visually grouped together.
> [@Lilly](#):
>
> having a moderation guide topic that is more up to date would certainly help with understanding the review queue better
Iām not so sure this is a lack of understanding the review queue _(although up to date guides are helpful)_ - itās purely the fact these items related to the same user are often split across the queue